SmartFit Solutions v. PaceMaster et. al.

8/4/2019 SmartFit Solutions v. PaceMaster et. al.

1/23

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SMARTFIT SOLUTIONS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

(1) PACEMASTER, LLC;

(2) STAR TRAC STRENGTH, INC.;

(3) BH NORTH AMERICA CORP.;

(4) PRECOR INCORPORATED;

(5) TRUE FITNESS TECHNOLOGY, INC.;

(6) SPORTSART, INC.;

(7) VISION FITNESS LLC;

(8) INTERNETFITNESS.COM, INC. D/B/ASMOOTH FITNESS;

(9) FITNESS EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.

D/B/A SOLE FITNESS;

(10) ADVANCED FITNESS GROUP;

(11) FREEMOTION FITNESS, INC.;

(12) ICON HEALTH & FITNESS INC.;

(13) CYBEX INTERNATIONAL INC.;

(14) HORIZON FITNESS;

(15) LIFE FITNESS INTERNATIONAL

SALES, INC.;

(16) WINSTON FITNESS EQUIPMENT INC.;

(17) LIFE SPAN FITNESS;

(18) NAUTILUS, INC.;

(19) BUSY BODY & FITNESS;

(20) FITNESS UNLIMITED;

(21) ECLAT, INC.;

(22) FIT SUPPLY, LLC;

(23) FITNESS GROUP OF TEXAS LLC d/b/a

HEST FITNESS;

(24) BODY WORKS FITNESS EQUIPMENT,

INC.;

(25) EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC.;

(26) FITNESS IN MOTION d/b/a

FITCORPUSA, INC.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


2/23

2

Plaintiff SmartFit Solutions LLC (together SmartFit or Plaintiff), as and for its

Complaint against PaceMaster, LLC; Star Trac Strength, Inc.; BH North America Corp; Precor

Incorporated; TRUE Fitness Technology, Inc.; SportsArt, Inc.; Vision Fitness LLC;

InternetFitness.com, Inc. d/b/a Smooth Fitness; Fitness Equipment Services, Inc. d/b/a SOLE

Fitness; Advanced Fitness Group; FreeMotion Fitness, Inc.; Icon Health & Fitness Inc.; Cybex

International Inc.; Horizon Fitness; Life Fitness International Sales, Inc; Winston Fitness

Equipment Inc.; Life Span Fitness; Nautilus, Inc.; Busy Body & Fitness; Fitness Unlimited;

Eclat, Inc.; Fit Supply, LLC; Fitness Group of Texas LLC d/b/a Hest Fitness; Body Works

Fitness Equipment, Inc.; Equinox Holdings, Inc.; and Fitness in Motion d/b/a FitcorpUSA, Inc.

(collectively Defendants), demand a trial by jury and allege as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff SmartFit Solutions LLC is a Texas limited liability company.

2. On information and belief, Defendant PaceMaster, LLC is incorporated under the

laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 34 Fairfield Pl., West Caldwell, New

Jersey, 07006. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas and has appointed Bill Staub,

its President, 34 Fairfield Pl., West Caldwell, New Jersey, 07006 as its agent for service of

process. On information and belief, PaceMaster, LLC regularly conducts and transacts business

in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or

through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Star Trac Strength, Inc. is incorporated

under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 41180 Raintree Ct., Murrieta,

CA 92562. This defendant has appointed MJ Hong, 14410 Myford Road, Irvine, CA 92606 as

its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Star Trac Strength, Inc. regularly

conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern


3/23

3

District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or

business units.

4. On information and belief, Defendant BH North America Corp. is incorporated

under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 20155 Ellipse, Foothill Ranch,

CA 92610. This defendant has appointed National Corporate Research, Ltd., 523 W. 6th

Street,

Suite 544, Los Angeles, CA 90014 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief,

BH North America Corp. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the

United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more

subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

5. On information and belief, Defendant Precor Incorporated is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with their principal place of

business at 20031 142nd

Avenue Ne, Woodinville, WA 98072. This defendant has appointed CT

Corporation System, 1801 West Bay Dr. NW Suite 206, Olympia, WA 98502 as its agent for

service of process. On information and belief, Precor Incorporated regularly conducts and

transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of

Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business

units.

6. On information and belief, Defendant TRUE Fitness Technology, Inc. is

incorporated under the laws of Missouri with its principal place of business at 865 Hoff Road, St.

Louis, MO 63366. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas and has appointed Jacob

W. Reby, 12935 N. Forty Drive, Suite 210, St. Louis, MO 63141 as its agent for service of

process. On information and belief, TRUE Fitness Technology Inc. regularly conducts and



4/23

4


units.

7. On information and belief, Defendant SportsArt, Inc. is incorporated under the

laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 19510 144th

Avenue NE #A1,

Woodinville, Washington 98072. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas and has

appointed Sanford R. Holien, 517 Quinault Avenue SE, Ocean Shores, WA 98569 as its agent

for service of process. On information and belief, Defendant SportsArt, Inc. regularly conducts

and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of


units.

8. On information and belief, Defendant Vision Fitness LLC is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with its principal place of

business at 500 South CP Avenue, Lake Mills, WI 53551-0280. This defendant is registered to

do business in Texas and has appointed Kenneth John Brauer, N7768 Laura Lane, Elkhorn, WI

53121 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Vision Fitness LLC

regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the

Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business

divisions, or business units.

9. On information and belief, Defendant InternetFitness.com, Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with its principal place of

business at 780 5th

Avenue, Suite 200, King of Prussia, PA 19406. This defendant is registered

to do business in Texas and has appointed InternetFitness.com, Inc., 780 5th

Avenue, Suite 200,

King of Prussia, PA 19406 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief,


5/23

5

InternetFitness.com, Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the



10. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Equipment Services, LLC is

incorporated under the laws of Utah with its principal place of business at 56 Exchange Place,

Salt Lake City, UT 84111. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas and has

appointed David Babcock, 56 Exchange Place, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 as its agent for service

of process. On information and belief, Fitness Equipment Services, LLC regularly conducts and



units.

11. On information and belief, Defendant Advanced Fitness Group is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with its principal place of

business at 1620 Landmark Drive, Cottage Grove, WI 53527. This defendant is registered to do

business in Texas and has appointed Robert D. Whip, 1620 Landmark Drive, Cottage Grove, WI

53527 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Advanced Fitness Group




12. On information and belief, Defendant FreeMotion Fitness, Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah with its principal place of business at

1500 South 1000 West, Logan, UT 84321. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas

and has appointed Everett Smith, 1500 South 1000 West, Logan, UT 84321 as its agent for


6/23

6

service of process. On information and belief, Free Motion Fitness, Inc. regularly conducts and



units.

13. On information and belief, Defendant Icon Health & Fitness Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at

1500 South 1000 West, Logan, UT 84321. This defendant is registered to do business in Texas

and has appointed CT Corporation Systems, 350 N. St. Paul, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for

service of process. On information and belief, Icon Health & Fitness regularly conducts and



units.

14. On information and belief, Defendant Cybex International Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of

business at 10 Trotter Drive, Medway, MA 02053-2299. This defendant is has appointed

Corporation Service Company, 84 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 as its agent for service of

process. On information and belief, Cybex International Inc. regularly conducts and transacts

business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself

and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

15. On information and belief, Defendant Horizon Fitness is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with its principal place of business 1620

Landmark Drive, Cottage Grove, WI 53527. This defendant has appointed Robert D. Whip,

1620 Landmark Drive, Cottage Grove, WI 53527 as its agent for service of process. On


7/23

7

information and belief, Horizon Fitness regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas,

throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one

or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

16. On information and belief, Defendant Life Fitness International Sales, Inc. is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal

place of business at 5100 North River Road, Schiller Park, IL 60176. This defendant has

appointed CT Corporation System, 208 SO LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604 as its

agent for service of process. On information and belief, Life Fitness regularly conducts and



units.

17. On information and belief, Defendant Winston Fitness Equipment Inc. is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of

business at 3730 Sunset Blvd., Houston, TX 77005. This defendant has appointed Winston

Boeker, 3618 South Shepherd, Houston, TX 77098 as its agent for service of process. On

information and belief, Winston Fitness Equipment Inc. regularly conducts and transacts

business in Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself

and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

18. On information and belief, Defendant Life Span Fitness is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Utah with its principal place of business at 785 W

1700 S. #3, Salt Lake City, UT 84104. This defendant has appointed Pete Schenk, 785 W 1700

S. #3, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief,

Life Span Fitness regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United


8/23

8

States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries,

affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

19. On information and belief, Defendant Nautilus, Inc. is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 16400 SE

Nautilus Drive, Vancouver, WA 98683. This defendant has appointed Corporation Service

Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th

Street, Suite 620,

Austin, TX 78701 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Nautilus, Inc.




20. On information and belief, Defendant Busy Body & Fitness is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at

9990 Empire Street, San Diego, CA 92126. This defendant has appointed Stanley R. Terry, Jr.,

1001 Kilgore Road, Baytown, TX 77520 as its agent for service of process. On information and

belief, Busy Body & Fitness regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the



21. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Unlimited a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 105

Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660. This defendant has appointed Stanley R. Terry, Jr.,

1001 Kilgore Road, Baytown, TX 77520 as its agent for service of process. On information and

belief, Fitness Unlimited regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the


9/23

9



22. On information and belief, Defendant Eclat, Inc. a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 10916

Westheimer, Houston, TX 77042. This defendant has appointed Stanley R. Terry, Jr., 1001

Kilgore Road, Baytown, TX 77520 as its agent for service of process. On information and

belief, Eclat, Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United



23. On information and belief, Defendant Fit Supply, LLC is a Texas limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 4760 Preston Road, Suite 244, PMB 255, Frisco,

TX 75034. This defendant has appointed Fit Supply, LLC, 4760 Preston Road, Suite 244, PMB

255, Frisco, TX 75034 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Fit Supply,

LLC regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States, and

within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates,

business divisions, or business units.

24. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Group of Texas LLC d/b/a Hest

Fitness is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 4730 S. Padre

Island Dr., Corpus Christi, TX 78411. This defendant has appointed Albert Kessler, 4360 South

Staples, Corpus Christi, TX 78411 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief,

Fit Supply, LLC regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United




10/23

10

25. On information and belief, Defendant Body Works Fitness Equipment Inc. is a

Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2222 W. Rundberg Lane,

Suite 400, Austin, TX 78758 . This defendant has appointed Michael Berger, 2222 W. Rundberg

Lane, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78758 as its agent for service of process. On information and

belief, Body Works Fitness Equipment Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas,

throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one

or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

26. On information and belief, Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. is a Texas limited

liability company with its principal place of business at 6671 Southwest Freeway, Suite 200,

Houston, TX 77074. This defendant has appointed CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul,

Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief, Equinox

Holdings, Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United States,

and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates,

business divisions, or business units.

27. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness in Motion d/b/a Fitcorp USA, Inc. is

a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2330 Apollo Cir.

Carrollton, TX 75006. This defendant has appointed Karen Glanger, 2330 Apollo Circle,

Carrollton, TX 75006-5516 as its agent for service of process. On information and belief,

Defendant Fitness in Motion d/b/a Fitcorp USA, Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in

Texas, throughout the United States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or

through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units.


11/23

11

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

28. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C.

1 et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

29. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and (c) and/or

1400(b). On information and belief, each Defendant has transacted business in this district, and

has committed acts of patent infringement in this district, including via their websites.

30. On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Courts general and

specific personal jurisdiction because: each Defendant has minimum contacts within the State of

Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, including via their websites, pursuant to due process

and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, each Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the

privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; each

Defendant regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of Texas and within the

Eastern District of Texas; and SmartFits causes of action arise directly from Defendants

business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.

31. More specifically, each Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries, ships,

distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises (including the provision of interactive web

pages) its products and services in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District

of Texas. On information and belief, each Defendant has committed patent infringement in the

State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Each Defendant solicits customers in the

State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Each Defendant has customers who are

residents of the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and who each use respective

Defendants products and services in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.


12/23

12

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,626,800

32. SmartFit is the owner of all rights, title and interest to United States Patent No.

6,626,800 (the 800 Patent) entitled Method of Exercise Prescription and Evaluation. The

800 Patent was issued on September 30, 2003 after a full and fair examination by the United

States Patent and Trademark Office. The application leading to the 800 Patent was filed on July

12, 2000. A true and correct copy of the 800 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

33. The 800 Patent is generally directed to novel, unique and non-obvious systems

and methods for generating exercise protocols. The invention includes, but is not limited to,

novel, unique and non-obvious systems and methods for using exercise devices with processors

having protocol generating algorithms.

34. On information and belief, Defendant PaceMaster, LLC has been and now is

infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the

United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have systems

and/or methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol generating

algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant PaceMaster,

LLCs Platinum Pro VR Treadmill. Defendant PaceMaster, LLC is thus liable for infringement

of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

35. On information and belief, Defendant Star Trac Strength, Inc. has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Star Trac


13/23

13

Strength, Inc.s E Series Treadmill. Defendant Star Trac Strength, Inc. is thus liable for

infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

36. On information and belief, Defendant BH North America Corp. has been and now

is infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the



algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant BH North

America Corp.s TS5 Treadmill. Defendant BH North America Corp. is thus liable for


37. On information and belief, Defendant Precor Incorporated has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Precor

Incorporateds 9.27 Treadmill. Defendant Precor Incorporated is thus liable for infringement of

the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

38. On information and belief, Defendant TRUE Fitness Technology, Inc. has been

and now is infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere

in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have

systems and/or methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol generating

algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant TRUE

Fitness Technology, Inc.s CS800 Treadmill. Defendant TRUE Fitness Technology, Inc. is thus

liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.


14/23

14

39. On information and belief, Defendant SportsArt, Inc. has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant SportsArt,

Inc.s E870 Elliptical Treadmill. Defendant SportsArt, Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the

800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

40. On information and belief, Defendant Vision Fitness has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Vision

Fitnesss Premier T9600 Treadmill. Defendant Vision Fitness is thus liable for infringement of

the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

41. On information and belief, Defendant InternetFitness.com, Inc. has been and now




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant

InternetFitness.com, Inc.s 7.35 R Treadmill. Defendant InternetFitness.com, Inc. is thus liable

for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

42. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Equipment Services, LLC has been



15/23

15



algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Fitness

Equipment Services, LLCs E95 Elliptical Treadmill. Defendant Fitness Equipment Services,

LLC is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

43. On information and belief, Defendant Advanced Fitness Group has been and now




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Advanced

Fitness Groups 5.0 AT Treadmill. Defendant Advanced Fitness Group is thus liable for


44. On information and belief, Defendant FreeMotion Fitness, Inc. has been and now




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant FreeMotion

Fitness, Inc.s FreeMotion Reflex t11.4 Treadmill. Defendant FreeMotion Fitness, Inc. is thus

liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

45. On information and belief, Defendant Icon Health & Fitness has been and now is





16/23

16

algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Icon Health

& Fitnesss FreeMotion Reflex t11.4 Treadmill. Defendant Icon Health & Fitness is thus liable

for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

46. On information and belief, Defendant Cybex International Inc. has been and now




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Cybex

International Inc.s 800S Stepper. Defendant Cybex International Inc. is thus liable for


47. On information and belief, Defendant Horizon Fitness has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Horizon

Fitness Elite Series Treadmill 4.1T and 5.1T. Defendant Horizon Fitness is thus liable for


48. On information and belief, Defendant Life Fitness has been and now is infringing

the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States

by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have systems and/or

methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol generating algorithms. An

example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Life Fitness T3 Treadmill


17/23

17

with Advanced Workouts Console. Defendant Life Fitness is thus liable for infringement of the


49. On information and belief, Defendant Winston Fitness Equipment Inc. has been




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Winston

Fitness Equipment Inc.s T3 Treadmill with Advanced Workouts Console. Defendant Winston

Fitness Equipment Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

271.

50. On information and belief, Defendant LifeSpan Fitness has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant LifeSpan

Fitness TR3000i and TR4000i Treadmill products. Defendant LifeSpan Fitness is thus liable for


51. On information and belief, Defendant Nautilus, Inc. has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Nautilus,


18/23

18

Inc.s Nautilus T516 Treadmill. Defendant Nautilus, Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the


52. On information and belief, Defendant Busy Body & Fitness has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Busy Body

& Fitness T3 Treadmill with Advanced Workouts Console. Defendant Busy Body & Fitness is

thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

53. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Unlimited has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Fitness

Unlimiteds Platinum Pro VR Treadmill. Defendant Fitness Unlimited is thus liable for


54. On information and belief, Defendant Eclat, Inc. has been and now is infringing

the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States

by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products that have systems and/or

methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol generating algorithms. An

example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Eclat, Inc.s Platinum Pro

VR Treadmill. Defendant Eclat, Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant

to 35 U.S.C. 271.


19/23

19

55. On information and belief, Defendant Fit Supply, LLC has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Fit Supply,

LLCs E Series Treadmill. Defendant Fit Supply, LLC is thus liable for infringement of the 800

Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

56. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness Group of Texas LLC d/b/a Hest

Fitness has been and now is infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial

district, and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to

sell products that have systems and/or methods for using exercise devices with processors having

protocol generating algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to,

Defendant Fitness Group of Texas LLC d/b/a Hest Fitness Precor 9.27 Treadmill. Defendant

Fitness Group of Texas LLC d/b/a Hest Fitness is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

57. On information and belief, Defendant Body Works Fitness Equipment, Inc. has

been and now is infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and

elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products

that have systems and/or methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol

generating algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant

Body Works Fitness Equipment, Inc.s CS800 Treadmill. Defendant Body Works Fitness

Equipment, Inc. is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.


20/23

20

58. On information and belief, Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. has been and now is




algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant Equinox

Holdings, Inc.s Equinox 95T Treadmill. Defendant Equinox Holdings, Inc. is thus liable for


59. On information and belief, Defendant Fitness in Motion d/b/a FitcorpUSA, Inc.

has been and now is infringing the 800 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and

elsewhere in the United States by making, using, importing, selling or offering to sell products

that have systems and/or methods for using exercise devices with processors having protocol

generating algorithms. An example of such a product includes, but is not limited to, Defendant

Fitness in Motion d/b/a FitcorpUSA, Inc.s TR3000i and TR4000i Treadmill products.

Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the 800 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271.

60. To the extent that facts learned in discovery show that Defendants infringement

of the 800 Patent is or has been willful, SmartFit reserves the right to request such a finding at

time of trial.

61. As a result of these Defendants infringement of the 800 Patent, SmartFit has

suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer

damages in the future unless Defendants infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.

62. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining these Defendants and their

agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on in active concert

therewith from infringing the 800 Patent, SmartFit will be greatly and irreparably harmed.


21/23

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, SmartFit respectfully requests that this Court enter:

A. A judgment in favor of SmartFit that Defendants have infringed the 800 Patent,

and that such infringement was willful;

B. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents,

servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in

active concert therewith from infringing the 800 Patent;

C. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay SmartFit its damages, costs,

expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants infringement of the 800

Patent as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;

D. An award to SmartFit for enhanced damages resulting from the knowing,

deliberate, and willful nature of Defendants prohibited conduct with notice being made at least

as early as the date of the filing of this Complaint, as provided under 35 U.S.C. 284;

E. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning

of 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding to SmartFit its reasonable attorneys fees; and

F. Any and all other relief to which SmartFit may show itself to be entitled.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

SmartFit, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury

of any issues so triable by right.


22/23

22

Dated: September 14, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

SMARTFIT SOLUTIONS LLC

/s/ Arthur I. Navarro

Arthur I. Navarro, Attorney in Charge

State Bar No. 00792013

Winston O. Huff


Navarro Huff, PLLC302 N. Market, Suite 450

Dallas, TX 75202

214.749.1220 (Firm)

214.749.1233 (Fax)[email protected]

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF



23/23

23

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on September 14, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing documentwith the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

Dated: September 14, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Arthur I. Navarro

Arthur I. Navarro, Attorney in Charge


Winston O. Huff


Navarro Huff, PLLC302 N. Market, Suite 450

Dallas, TX 75202214.749.1220 (Firm)214.749.1233 (Fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


SmartFit Solutions v. PaceMaster et. al.

Documents

Transcript of SmartFit Solutions v. PaceMaster et. al.